Association of Managementof Private Colleges v. The Anna University & Ors.

12. The colleges of Engineering and Technology and the collegesof Arts and Science are operating in different fields. The Arts andScience Colleges are governed by the different statutes, namely, theTamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, the statutes ofthe concerned Universities and the University Grants Commission Act,1956, and the Regulations framed thereunder. Whereas the colleges ofEngineering and Technology are governed by the concerned Acts of theTechnical Universities, like, the Anna Universities Acts. Theactivities of the Anna universities, which are the respondents 1 to 3herein, are encroaching on the occupied field of the BharathiarUniversity. Further, the Anna University, Coimbatore, is offeringonline distance education programmes in Arts and Science disciplines,without the necessary approval of the Distance Education Council andthe Joint Committee of the University Grants Commission and the AllIndia council for Technical Education. As such, the above mentionedunauthorised activities of the Anna Universities are arbitrary innature and therefore, they are illegal and void. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the firstrespondent, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by thepetitioner Association is not maintainable, in view of the subsequentdevelopments that have taken place. The Syndicate of the firstrespondent University had already passed a resolution, dated4.7.2008, to approve the recommendations of the three MemberCommittee and to accord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses, withcertain conditions. In view of the fact that the resolution of theSyndicate, dated 4.7.2008, had not been challenged, the present writpetition, seeking a writ of mandamus, is not maintainable in law. 14. It has also been stated that the petitioner Association hasno locus standi to file the present writ petition, on behalf of itsmembers. The petitioner Association cannot term itself as anaggrieved person and therefore, the present writ petition is liableto be dismissed in limini. The first respondent University had beenestablished by the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 (Act No.42of 2006). It is an affiliated type of University. Apart from thethree Government Engineering Colleges and the two GovernmentEngineering Colleges, there are 98 Self Financing EngineeringColleges under the fold of the first respondent University. 15. It has been further stated that section 4 of the AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore Act, 2006, deals with the powers, functionsand objects of the University and they are as follows: "1. To provide facilities and offer opportunities forHigher Education in Engineering, Technology and AlliedSciences by instructions, training, research, developmentand extension and by such other means as the University maydeem fit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. To provide for research and for the advancement anddissemination of knowledge in Engineering, Technology andAllied Sciences.3. To institute degrees, titles, diplomas and otheracademic distinctions in Engineering, Technology and AlliedSciences." 16. Further, Section 5(1) of the Act empowers the firstrespondent University to affiliate the colleges providing courses ofstudy or training in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences.Thus, the first respondent University is empowered to offer thecourses in the field of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciencesand also to affiliate colleges conducting such courses. Further,there is no provision in the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006,prohibiting the first respondent University from offering courses inthe field of Allied Sciences and from granting affiliation tocolleges offering such courses. The B.Sc., M.Sc., B.B.A. and B.C.A.courses offered by the various affiliated colleges are related to thefield of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. The syllabi,course study and the training provided in the said courses are muchhigher in standard. The courses offered are not the routine degreecourses offered by the Arts and Science colleges. Further, it cannotbe contended that the first respondent University cannot conduct thecourses, which do not find a place in the list of the approvednomenclature of courses of the All India council for TechnicalEducation. The courses are conducted by the Anna University and itsaffiliated colleges, only in accordance with the powers available inthe Act. 17. It has been further stated that the All India Council forTechnical Education Act, 1987, has been enacted to exercisesupervisory control, for maintenance of standards in the TechnicalInstitutions. Section 2(h) of the said Act defines "TechnicalInstitution" as an Institution, not being a University, which offerscourses or programmes of Technical Education. As such, theregulations of the All India council for Technical Education cannotbe binding upon a University, which is created under a statute.Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the first respondentUniversity is not empowered to conduct the courses which do not comewithin the ambit and scope of the Act. 18. It is only the All India Council for Technical Education,which is to make a decision as to whether the courses offered by thefirst respondent University would be a technical or non-technicalcourse. The petitioner Association cannot question the decision ofthe first respondent University to conduct or affiliate such courses.In fact, the All India Council for Technical Education has approvedthe inclusion of M.B.A. and M.C.A. courses in their approved list of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Technical courses. Therefore, the bachelor degree, in B.B.A. andB.C.A. courses, cannot be said to be non-technical in nature. Evenif the courses do not find a place in the All India Council forTechnical Education Act, 1987, the first respondent University canoffer such courses, in accordance with the provisions of the AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore Act, 2006. The letter of the All India Councilfor Technical Education, dated 30.5.1996, states that the issueregarding the approval of B.Sc., M.Sc. (Computer Science) courses maybe taken up before the concerned affiliating University and the StateGovernment. The letter of the All India Council for TechnicalEducation makes it clear that its regulations cannot be enforcedagainst the University, insofar as it relates to approval of courses. 19. It has been further submitted that the University GrantsCommission does not prohibit or prevent the University from offeringcourses, which are within the objects of the Acts, under which therespective Universities have been created. 20. It has been further stated that the Syndicate of the firstrespondent University, during its meeting held, on 29.3.2008, videits resolution No.3.11.7.2 had resolved not to give affiliation toB.Sc., B.C.A. and M.Sc. courses, in the All India Council forTechnical Education approved institutions, in the University area,from the academic year 2008-2009. In the meantime, the member-Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, vide hisletter, dated 1.4.2008, had stated that B.Sc-I.T. Courses should beoffered only by the Arts and Science Universities and therefore, suchcourses should not be offered in the colleges affiliated to the AnnaUniversity. However, by the proceedings, dated 8.4.2008, the firstrespondent University had informed the member-Secretary about theresolution passed by the Syndicate of the first respondentUniversity. 21. It has been further stated that pursuant to the resolution,dated 29.3.2008, various affiliated colleges had submittedrepresentations stating that they have been conducting B.Sc. andM.Sc. programmes in the field of allied sciences and some of theaffiliated colleges have been conducting the programmes even beforethe formation of the All India council for Technical Education.Therefore, the said colleges had requested the first respondentUniversity to approve and affiliate B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmesoffered in the Engineering Colleges, for the academic year 2008-2009and for the subsequent academic years. Considering the saidrepresentations a three Member Committee was constituted. TheCommittee, after due deliberations, had recommended that all B.Sc.and M.Sc. Courses, except B.Sc., (Computer Science, I.T. and VisualCommunication) and B.C.A., may be considered for the grant ofaffiliation by the first respondent University. The recommendation ofthe Committee had been placed before the Syndicate, during its fourthmeeting, held on 28.5.2008. During the meeting held, on 28.5.2008, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the members of the syndicate had expressed their opinion that theaffiliation, as requested by the colleges, can be granted. Finally,by a resolution NO.4.11.7.1., the Syndicate had resolved to representthe matter, along with the views of the syndicate, to the StateGovernment to obtain its decision. Accordingly, the resolution of theSyndicate was communicated to the State Government, on 30.5.2008. TheState Government, by its letter, dated 1.7.2008, had stated that thematter may be placed before the Syndicate for its further decision. 22. In view of the urgency involved, the matter was placed beforethe Syndicate for its further consideration, by circulation. Thesyndicate had resolved to approve the recommendations of the threeMember Committee and to accord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc.Courses, in the affiliated colleges, subject to the followingconditions:"1. The institutions shall offer a maximum of only 5courses to the students each in B.Sc.,/M.Sc., out of the list(annexure) selecting not more than 3 courses either B.Sc., orM.Sc.2. Separate infrastructure facilities shall be createdand faculty to be appointed exclusively for conducting theB.Sc/M.Sc. program.3. To phase out B.Sc/M.Sc courses from 2013-14 onwards."23. It has been further stated that by a letter, dated 10.4.2008,the resolution of the Syndicate, dated 29.3.2008, had beencommunicated to all the affiliated Engineering Colleges. It isincorrect to say that the first respondent University had passed theresolution, dated 10.4.2008, stating that it would not grantaffiliation to B.Sc., B.C.A. and M.Sc. Courses, in the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education approved institutions, from theacademic year 2008-2009. The allegation of the petitioner that thefirst respondent university had liberally sanctioned a large numberof seats for the courses, which have been started in the affiliatedcolleges, without regard to the availability of infrastructure andteaching resources, is misconceived. On the contrary, the resolutionhad been passed by the Syndicate, only on the condition thatsufficient infrastructure facilities shall be created for conductingthe B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes. Further, the claim made by thepetitioner that the admission of students in Arts and ScienceColleges, located in Coimbatore area, have been seriously affected,is not sustainable. 24. It has been further stated that the first respondentUniversity has been conducting various courses and grantingaffiliation for such courses, only in accordance with the objects andpowers conferred under the Anna university, Coimbatore Act, 2006. Thesaid courses affiliated by the first respondent University are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ related to the field of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences.No norms or guidelines had been prescribed by the all India Councilfor Technical Education, for the affiliation of the courses. Further,the All India Council for Technical Education does not possess thepower to lay down the norms and the guidelines for the affiliation ofthe courses. 25. It has been further stated that the definition of "AlliedSciences" would include all subjects allied or related to Engineeringand Technology. Since the courses in question, which are conducted bythe first respondent University and its affiliated colleges, comewithin the ambit of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences andsince the first respondent University is empowered, under the AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore Act, 2006, to conduct, affiliate and approvecourses, to provide for instructions, training and for disseminationof knowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences, theclaims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits. 26. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by thepetitioner Association is not maintainable. The petitionerAssociation has no locus standi to file the writ petition on behalfof its members. 27. It has been further stated that the Anna University wasoriginally established as a unitary University, by the AnnaUniversity Act, 1978. Later, by the Anna University (Amendment) Act,2001, it was empowered to affiliate colleges within the Universityarea. 28. Section 3 (1) of the Anna University Act, 1978, dealing withthe establishment of the university, reads as follows:"(1). For the development of engineering, technologyand allied sciences and for furthering the advancement oflearning and prosecution of research in engineering,technology and allied sciences, on and from the appointedday, there shall be established a University by the name ofAnna University."29. Section 4 of the Anna University Act, 1978, deals with theobject of the University, where it has been categorically stated thatthe objects of the University includes the providing of facilities,the creating of Opportunities, devising and implementing the variousprogrammes of education and to further the advancement of knowledgein the fields of engineering, technology and allied sciences. 30. Section 5 (ac) of the Act empowers the University toaffiliate the colleges. The Anna University Act, 1978, does notcontain any prohibitory section or clause, which would prevent itfrom offering courses in the fields of Engineering, technology and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allied sciences or from granting affiliation to the colleges offeringsuch courses. 31. It has been further stated that the Act has been establishedto exercise supervisory control for maintenance of standards inTechnical Institutions. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines "technicalinstitution" as an institution, not being a University, which offerscourses or programmes of Technical Education. It is incorrect tostate that the University is not empowered to conduct the courses,which do not come within the ambit and scope of the Act and the listof approved nomenclature of courses. As long as the Act empowers theUniversity to offer and to conduct courses, it cannot be questionedon the sole ground that such courses do not find a place in theapproved nomenclature of the courses of the All India council forTechnical Education. 32. Merely for the reason that the second respondent Universityoffers courses which do not come within the purview of the All Indiacouncil for Technical Education, it cannot be said that it cannotoffer or conduct such courses. However, it is for the All Indiacouncil for Technical Education to decide, if it is within its powersto include or not to include any course, depending on the nature ofthe course and to decide whether the course would fall under thetechnical category or under the non-technical category. Thepetitioner Association cannot be permitted to question the offer ofthe second respondent University to conduct the courses or theaffiliation granted by the second respondent University for suchcourses being conducted in its affiliated colleges. 33. It has been further stated that in the approved nomenclatureof courses, approved by the All India Council for TechnicalEducation, both M.C.A. (Master in Computer Application) and M.B.A.(Master in Business Administration) courses had been included. Even,according to the petitioner, they would qualify to be coming underthe category of technical courses. As such, the Bachelor Degrees inthe same courses, namely, B.B.A and B.C.A., cannot be categorised asnon-technical courses. Even if certain courses do not come under thefold of the All India Council for Technical Education, it cannot besaid that the University does not have the power to offer or conductsuch courses. Further, the University Grants Commission Act does notprohibit or prevent the University from offering the courses, whichare within the object and ambit of the enactment, under which theUniversities have been created. 34. The role of the All India Council for Technical Education, inrespect of the Universities, is only advisory and recommendatory innature. No norms or guidelines have been laid down by the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education for the Universities to follow, withregard to the affiliation of courses. The Universities are to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ follow the provisions of the respective University enactments, whichwould be applicable to them. 35. It has also been stated that the second respondent Universityis conducting or granting affiliation to the courses, only inaccordance with the objectives of the Act, in respect of the fieldsof the Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences. The averments ofthe petitioner that there is a Scientific Division of Arts andScience programmes, in respect of the Engineering and the Technicalprogrammes and that the second respondent is interfering with suchdivision, are incorrect. The claim of the petitioner that the coursesconducted by the second respondent University are Arts and Sciencecourses had been denied. Further, there is no encroachment of theoccupied field of the Bharathiar University Act, as claimed by thepetitioner. In fact, the respondent Universities are empowered toaffiliate the colleges and to provide for instructions, training,research and for dissemination of knowledge and to award degrees,Diplomas and other academic distinctions, in Engineering, Technologyand allied sciences. In such circumstances, the writ petition filedby the petitioner is devoid of merits and it is liable to bedismissed. 36. Mr.P.Haridass, the learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner, had submitted that the Anna University, Coimbatore, wasestablished under the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, with theview to ensure better and effective monitoring of the EngineeringColleges, which are situated in the area coming under the said Act.The necessity for establishing the Anna University, Coimbatore,arose, as it was realised that it was difficult for the AnnaUniversity, Chennai, to manage the affairs of 240 colleges situatedin the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu had decidedto establish three more Technical Universities, with clearlydemarcated areas of jurisdiction. Accordingly, three universitieswere established at Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli and Tirunelveli.Contrary to the statement of objects and reasons of the enactment,the first respondent University had started conducting and grantingaffiliation to Arts and Science courses, which do not come under itspurview. Similarly, the second and third respondent Universities arealso offering courses, which do not come within their purview, inaccordance with the Acts, under which they were established.37. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that there is no power vested, either in the AnnaUniversity Act, 1978 or the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 orthe Anna University, Tirunelveli Act, to conduct, grant, affiliateor approve Arts and Science programmes and courses, which are coursesconducted by the Arts and Science Colleges coming within the purviewof the University of Madras, Chennai, Bharathiar University,Coimbatore, Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai and ManonmaniamSundaranar University, Tirunelveli. Thus, it is clear that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents 1 to 3 are encroaching on the areas covered by the otherUniversities, without having the jurisdiction to do so and withouthaving the sanction of law. 38. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that there is no power under the All India Councilfor Technical Education and its Regulations permitting therespondents 1 to 3 to conduct, grant, affiliate or approve Arts andScience Programmes and courses, which are normally conducted by theArts and Science Colleges. The introduction of Arts and Scienceprogrammes and courses in its campus at Coimbatore and in itsaffiliated, approved, constituent and autonomous colleges, by thefirst respondent University and the introduction of such courses inthe second and third respondent Universities, is a clear violation ofthe norms and standards and the guidelines laid down by the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education. It amounts to unapproved andunauthorised interference in the scientific division of Arts andScience subjects on the one hand and the Engineering and Technicalprogrammes on the other hand. The introduction of such courses in theUniversities, by the respondents 1 to 3 is contrary to the variousrecommendations of the committees constituted with regard to HigherEducation. 39. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that the Anna Universities, which were establishedto cater to the needs of Higher Education in Engineering, Technologyand Allied Sciences, including research oriented programmes, cannotbe permitted to conduct under graduate programmes in Arts andSciences. In doing so, the main purpose of the establishment of theTechnical Universities has been defeated. The terms "Allied Sciences"have not been defined in the Anna Universities Acts or in any otherstatute or regulations. Since there is no clear definition, the termsshould be interpreted using the principles of "ejusdem generis" and"No scittur a sociis". The terms can only mean and refer to theprogrammes and courses, which have a direct relation to thedisciplines of Engineering and Technology. The objects of theTechnical Universities are clear. They have to provide the facilitiesand offer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering andTechnology and Allied Sciences and to devise and implement programmesfor further advancement of knowledge in Engineering, Technology andAllied Sciences. Therefore, starting, granting of approval andaffiliation for Arts and Science programmes and courses would bealien to the purposes for which the technical universities had beenestablished. 40. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that the Colleges and Institutions, which areseeking affiliation for its academic programmes, should obtain theapproval of the All India Council For Technical Education, as per theprovisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Further, a combined reading of the Act and its Regulations and theprovisions of the Anna Universities Acts, makes it clear that therespondents 1 to 3 are not empowered to commence Arts and Sciencecourses in the respective Universities and in the affiliated collegesand Institutes. It is clear that Arts and Science courses are notTechnical courses, as defined in the hand book issued by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education, for the academic year 2008-2009. 41. It has also been contended that the Anna Universities andtheir affiliated Colleges and Institutes are expected to operate in aseparate field, while the colleges and Institutes coming under thejurisdiction of the other Universities would operate in a differentfield. The Arts and Science colleges would be governed by certainstatutes and regulations, which are different from those which governthe Anna Universities Acts. The starting of the non-technical coursesby the Anna Universities and the approval of such courses in itsaffiliated colleges and institutions would amount to encroachment ofthe "Occupied Field" of the Bharathiar University. Further, theoffering of online and distance education programmes in Arts andScience disciplines, by the Anna University, Coimbatore, is withoutthe approval of the joint committee of the University GrantsCommission, the All India Council for Technical Education and theDistance Education Council. Therefore, the action of the respondents1 to 3 in conducting the courses, which are non-technical in nature,would be contrary to the Anna Universities Acts and therefore, it isinvalid in the eye of law. 42. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that the main issue to be resolved in the present writpetition would depend on the query as to whether a university, suchas the Anna university, established to conduct and affiliate coursesand programmes relating to Engineering and Technology, can grantpermission to its affiliated colleges to start and to conduct coursesand programmes in Arts and Sciences. 43. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had tracedthe background in which the Anna Universities had been established.He had also pointed out the objects of the Anna University Act, 1978,which states that the University has been established to providefacilities and to offer opportunities for Higher Education inEngineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and to devise andimplement programmes of education in Engineering, Technology andAllied sciences that is relevant to the current needs of the societyand to further the advancement of knowledge in Engineering,Technology and Allied sciences and to prosecute and promote research,to disseminate and advance the knowledge thereon, for the bettermentof the society. He had also enumerated the powers and functions ofthe university. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

44. It was further contended that the Anna University, that was,originally, established had expanded into four differentUniversities, namely, the Anna University, Chennai, the AnnaUniversity-Coimbatore, the Anna University-Tiruchirapalli and theAnna University-Tirunelveli. The Anna University-Coimbatore is anaffiliated type of University established by the Anna University,Coimbatore Act, 2006, (Tamil Nadu Act No.42 of 2006), the Governmentof Tamil Nadu had established the Anna University, Coimbatore, on1.2.2007. Anna University has three Government Engineering Colleges,two Government Aided Engineering Colleges and 103 Self FinancingEngineering Colleges. Further, 43 new Engineering Colleges areexpected to be started by the Anna University, Coimbatore, in theensuing academic year. There are about 75,000 aspiring engineeringgraduates, who would be studying in the engineering colleges. 45. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that the All India Council for Technical Educationapproved nomenclature of courses published in the All India councilfor Technical Education hand book, for the academic year 2008-2009,restricts its domain to the courses coming under Engineering andTechnology to M.C.A. Architecture, Town Planning, Management,Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Applied Arts and crafts only. Allother disciplines are outside the domain of All India council forTechnical Education. As such, the Universities and technicalinstitutions are not empowered to offer other courses. When the AnnaUniversity attempted to introduce the new courses other than thosewhich have been approved by the All India council for TechnicalEducation, the Bharathiar University had raised the issue with theState Government stating that the starting of new courses by the AnnaUniversities, without the approval of the All India council forTechnical Education, would infringe its rights, as it is in violationof the conditions and norms prescribed by the All India council forTechnical Education and the decision of the Syndicate of the AnnaUniversity. Further, it would be greatly affecting the admission ofstudents in Arts and Science colleges, as the students would beimpelled to join the courses offered by the Anna Universities. Whilethe affiliated colleges were charging more than Rs.1,00,000/- asfees, the Arts and Science colleges are charging only the feesspecified by the competent authorities. 46. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther contended that, while the teachers appointed by the AnnaUniversity are not subject to approval on the basis of theirqualifications, the appointment of teaching staff by the Arts andScience Colleges have to be approved by the concerned university, onthe basis of the qualifications prescribed by the University GrantsCommission and the other regulations applicable to them. 47. It was further contended that the terms 'Allied Sciences'would only mean those subjects which are akin to subjects relating to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Engineering and Technology, in accordance with the maxim 'No scittura sociis'. The meaning of the words is to be judged by the company itkeeps. Therefore, the question arises as to whether a TechnicalUniversity, like the Anna University can conduct courses and giveaffiliation for courses like B.B.A., B.C.A., B.Sc., B.B.M., etc.which would not fall under the meaning of 'Allied Sciences'. Sincethe field occupied by a Central Act, like the All India Council forTechnical Education Act cannot be encroached upon by the Stateenactments, like the Anna Universities Acts. 48. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadalso contended that since the Anna Universities Acts are a creatureof a state legislature, under Entry 25 of List III of the VIIschedule of the Constitution of India and the All India Council forTechnical Education Act is an act of the Parliament, under Entry 66of the list, there cannot be any repugnancy between them. If there issuch repugnancy, the Central legislation would prevail over the Statelegislation. 49. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadfurther stated that since there is no resolution by the Academiccouncil of the Anna University recommending the starting of suchcourses, which do not fall under the category of 'Allied Sciences',the Anna Universities cannot have the power or jurisdiction to aid inthe commencement of such courses. 50. The learned counsel had further stated that the AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore, had also started correspondence courses,which has further caused serious harm to the colleges, which are themembers of the petitioner Association. 51. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, the learned counsel for the firstrespondent, had submitted that the petitioner Association has notfurnished sufficient particulars, regarding its members, in order toshow as to how its members are adversely affected due to the offer ofcertain courses by the respondents 1 to 3 and by the approval forconducting such courses in its affiliated Colleges and Institutes.There are no specific averments regarding the actual prejudice causedto the colleges. Therefore, the writ petition preferred by thepetitioner Association is liable to be dismissed in limini. 52. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther contended that the All India Council for Technical EducationAct provides for fixing standards and norms in respect of theTechnical Education, as defined in section 2(g) of the Act. Section 2(g) of the Act deals only with the disciplines of Engineering andTechnology. The All India Council for Technical Education has nojurisdiction in respect of 'Allied Sciences'. The Anna University,coimbatore Act, 2006 (Act 42 of 2006) has been enacted in exercise of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the powers vested in entry 25 of list III of the Constitution ofIndia. 53. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther contended that Section 4 of the Anna University, CoimbatoreAct 2006, prescribes that the University shall provide facilities andoffer opportunities for Higher Education in Engineering, Technologyand Allied Sciences, by instructions, training, development andextension and by such other means as the university may deem fit andto provide for research and advancement and dissemination ofknowledge in Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences and toinstitute degrees, titles, diplomas and other academic distinctionsin the fields of Engineering, Technology and Allied Sciences.Accordingly, the Anna Universities can conduct courses, which comeunder the definition of 'Allied Sciences' and they can also affiliatecolleges to conduct courses in Allied Sciences.54. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther contended that, as long as there is no challenge to the poweror the competence of the State to enact a law empowering the AnnaUniversities to commence and to approve certain courses such aprivilege vested in the Universities would be valid in the eye oflaw. Further, it is clear that the Anna Universities Acts empower theconcerned Universities to conduct courses and to grant affiliation tocolleges to conduct the courses relating to 'Allied Sciences'. TheAct does not prohibit the Universities from offering courses otherthan those defined under Section 2(g) of the All India Council forTechnical Education Act. 55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondenthad further submitted that it is incorrect to contend that the AnnaUniversities can only offer courses approved by the All India Councilfor Technical Education. There is no such prohibition either in theAll India Council for Technical Education Act or the AnnaUniversities Acts. There is no doubt that the All India Council forTechnical Education Act is only concerned with the maintenance ofstandards in Technical Education and it is not concerned with 'AlliedSciences'. 56. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther contended that there is no repugnancy between the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education Act and the Anna Universities Acts.The All India Council for Technical Education Act does not deal with'Allied Sciences'. Therefore, it cannot be said that it occupies thewhole field, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner. The theory of Occupied Field has been rejected by theSupreme Court in its decisions reported in STATE OF T.N. Vs.S.V.BRATHEEP (2004) 4 SCC 513) and in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Vs.J.B.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2005) 3 SCC 212). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

57. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther stated that once it is accepted that the State Legislaturehad validly enacted the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, thepetitioner cannot contend that the first respondent does not have thepower to conduct courses in 'Allied Sciences' and to approve suchcourses being conducted by its affiliated Colleges and Institutions.As the Syndicate of the Anna University had passed the resolution onthe basis of the recommendations of an expert body, it cannot be saidthat the resolution is arbitrary and invalid. The expert body hadopined that the courses listed in the annexure to theirrecommendations had a high technology content. Therefore, it wasclear that the Engineering Colleges were better equipped in 'AlliedSciences', as compared to the Arts and Science colleges coming underthe jurisdiction of the other Universities. 58. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent hadfurther contended that the syndicate of the first respondentUniversity had passed the resolution, on 4.7.2008, based on therecommendations of the Committee. Since the petitioner has not chosento challenge the said resolution and as the provisions of the AnnaUniversities Acts had not been challenged by the petitioner, theprayer of the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus to forbear therespondents 1 to 3 from conducting certain courses is notmaintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 59. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondentUniversity had stated that the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Act does not cover the entire field of education. It is nota complete code in itself. There are areas, which are not covered bythe said Act. The subjects coming under the terms 'Allied Sciences'are not covered by the Act. Therefore, there is no repugnancy,insofar as the present case is concerned. Since the petitionerAssociation has no locus standi to question the powers and thejurisdiction of the Anna Universities, the present writ petition isnot maintainable in law. 60. Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the second respondent, had submitted that the petitionerAssociation is not entitled to file a writ petition on behalf of itsmembers, since the averments and allegations in the writ petition donot concern the Association, as such. 61. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondenthad further contended that, as per the provisions of Section 5 of theAnna University Act, 1978, relating to the objects of the University,the university is empowered to conduct the courses in Engineering,Technology and Allied sciences. By virtue of the powers conferred onthe University, it is conducing B.E., B.Tech. and other AlliedScience courses, including M.sc. and M.B.A. and M.C.A. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ courses. It is also granting affiliation to Science Courses incolleges, which are affiliated to the said Universities. 62. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the secondrespondent had further contended that the contention of thepetitioner, that the respondents 1 to 3 are conducting courses, whichare not in the list of courses for which the approval is granted bythe All India Council for Technical Education and that the saidcourses are to be conducted only in Arts and Science colleges, isuntenable and unsustainable in law. 63. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondenthad further contended that the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Act does not, in any manner, prohibit the Universitiesestablished under the enactments of the State Legislature fromconducting courses which are permissible under the enactments bywhich the universities had been established. As such, the courses arepermissible, in accordance with the objects and reasons of therespective Acts. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge thepower of the Universities, merely on the ground that the students arenot willing to seek admissions in Arts and Science Collegesconducting such courses. The Supreme Court, in its decision inBHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICALEDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861), has categorically held that theRegulations of the All India Council for Technical Education cannotbe enforced against or bind the Universities to seek prior approvalto commence a new department or course or programme in TechnicalEducation, either in the University or in its Department or in theconstituent Institutions. while so, it is incorrect to contend thatthe Universities are not empowered to conduct the courses, which donot come within the ambit and scope of the Act and the list ofapproved nomenclature of courses by the All India Council forTechnical Education. As such, the courses that are to be conducted bythe universities and the courses that are affiliated by theuniversities do not come under the purview of the All India Councilfor Technical Education Act. 64. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondenthad further submitted that the averments made by the petitionerproceeds on the basis that since the All India Council for TechnicalEducation list of approved courses do not contain the coursesaffiliated by the universities, it is impermissible for theUniversities to conduct and affiliate the same. Such averments madeon behalf of the petitioner are contrary to the provisions of the AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act and the Anna UniversitiesActs. The contentions of the petitioner, that the B.C.A. and B.B.A.courses are not technical courses, and therefore, the universitiesare not entitled to conduct and affiliate the same, is unsustainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

65. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondenthad further contended that the contention that the Universities canconduct M.C.A. and M.B.A. courses on the ground that they find aplace in the All India Council for Technical Education list ofapproved courses and that the Bachelor Degree in the same subjectconducted as B.B.A. and B.C.A. courses would not qualify as technicalcourses coming under the purview of the Universities Acts arecontradictory in nature. 66. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the second respondenthad further contended that the petitioner has not challenged thepower or authority of the Universities to conduct 'Allied Science'courses. Further, it has not been pleaded that the courses conductedby the Universities and the affiliated colleges are relating to Artsand that they are not related to 'Allied Sciences'. Therefore, thereis nothing wrong in the decision of the Universities in conductingsuch courses and in approving such courses in affiliated colleges andInstitutions. 67. The learned counsel had further contended that as per theprovisions of the Anna Universities Acts, the Academic Council andthe Syndicate are vested with the powers to conduct and affiliatecourses, in furtherance of the object with which the Universities hadbeen established. 68. The learned counsel had further submitted that since theconducting and the affiliating of the Allied Science courses are inaccordance with the provisions of the Universities Acts, the prayerin the writ petition is not maintainable. The academic councils ofthe Anna Universities are empowered to perform, in accordance withthe provisions of the Anna Universities Acts. The power of theUniversities do not depend on the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Act. 69. The learned counsel had further contended that it is not thecase of the petitioner that the academic council of the AnnaUniversity had acted beyond the scope and powers of the AnnaUniversities Acts. Unless the specific provisions of the Acts arechallenged, the petitioner would not be entitled to the reliefsprayed for in the present writ petition. Further, it is not the caseof the petitioner that the Anna University, Chennai and the AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore, are conducting Arts courses. The petitionerhas not specifically pointed out as to which are the courses that theAnna Universities cannot conduct. As long as the petitioner has notchallenged the recommendations of the Academic Council and theapproval granted by the Syndicate of the Anna Universities, theycannot pray for a writ of Mandamus, as in the present case. 70. Mr.N.Muralikumaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalfof the fourth respondent, had contended that the respondents 1 to 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot contend that the Universities cannot be regulated by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education, in accordance with theprovisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act. Theintention behind the enactment of the Act is to sponsor a coordinateddevelopment in the system of Technical Education in India. The powerto inspect the Universities had been given to the All India Councilfor Technical Education, under Section 11 of the Act, which is asfollows:"(1) For the purposes of ascertaining the financialneeds of a technical institution or a University or itsstandards of teaching examination and research, the Councilmay cause an inspection of any department or departments ofsuch technical institution or University to be made in suchmanner as may be prescribed and by such person or personsas it may direct.(2) The Council shall communicate to the technicalinstitution or University the date on which any inspectionunder sub-section (1) is to be made and the technicalinstitution or University shall be entitled to beassociated with the inspection in such manner as may beprescribed. (3) The Council shall communicate to the technicalinstitution or the University, its views in regard to theresults of any such inspection and may, after ascertainingthe opinion of that technical institution or University,recommended to that institution or University the action tobe taken as a result of such inspection.(4) All communications to a technical institution orUniversity under this section shall be made to theexecutive authority thereof and the executive authority ofthe technical institution or University shall report to theCouncil the action, if any, which is proposed to be takenfor the purpose of implementing any such recommendation asis referred to in sub-section (3)." 71. In fact, the functions of the Council have been enumeratedunder section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:"10. Functions of the Council: It shall be the duty of theCouncil to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuringco-ordinated and integrated development of technical educationand maintenance of standards and for the purpose of performingits functions under this Act, the Council may:-(e) The scope of Sections 10(a), (b), (d), (e), (f),(g), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), (q), (r),(u), does not confine https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it only to technical institutions but it is also applicableto Universities. (f) Only Section 10(m), (p) & (s) and the first part ofSection 10(k) is restricted to Technical Institutions. (g) It is submitted that the words "AND" found inSection 10(k) should be read disjunctively and therefore itis clear that the Parliament intended that only for startingof technical institutions, approval is not required to beobtained from the All India Council for Technical Educationwhich is a natural consequence as Universities could becreated by Parliamentary and State Enactments.(h) A joint reading of Section 10(g) where the words"Universities" is specifically used along with the Section 11in the light of the objects of the All India Council forTechnical Education enactment, in view of the non restrictingof the powers of the All India Council for TechnicalEducation only to technical institutions in Section 10 whichis as follows:Sections 10(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j),(l), (n), (q), (r),(u) which are extracted as under:10(a) Undertake survey in the various fields oftechnical education, collect data on all related matters andmake forecast of the needed growth and development intechnical education;(b) co-ordinated the development of technical educationin the country at all levels;(d) promote innovations, research and development inestablished and new technologies, generation, adoption andadaptation of new, technologies to meet developmentalrequirements and for overall improvement of educationalprocesses;(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical educationfor women handicapped and weaker sections of the society;(f) promote an effective link between technicaleducation system and other relevant systems includingresearch and development organisations, industry and thecommunity.(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems fortechnical institutions and Universities imparting technicaleducation, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcingaccountability.(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-servicetraining of teachers and identify institutions or centres andset up new centres for offering staff development programmesincluding continuing education of teachers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staffqualifications, quality instructions, assessment andexaminations. (j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition andother fees;(l) advice the Central Government in respect of grant ofcharacter to any professional body or institution in thefield of technical education conferring powers, rights andprivileges on it for the promotion of such profession in itsfield including conduct of examination and awarding ofmembership certificates.(n) take all necessary steps to preventcommercialization of technical education;(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect ofcourses, programmes to such technical institutions which failto comply with the directions given by the Council within thestipulated period of time and take such other steps as may benecessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of theCouncil;(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisationsand to set up new organisations to ensure effective dischargeof the Council's responsibilities and to create positions ofprofessional, technical and supporting staff based onrequirements. (u) set up a National Board of Accreditation toperiodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions orprogrammes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standardsspecified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to theCouncil or to the Commission or to other bodies, regardingrecognition or derecognition of the institution or theprogramme." 72. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourthrespondent had further contended that the provisions of the Act makesit clear that the Universities are bound to follow the norms andstandards laid down by the All India Council for Technical Education.While enacting the Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006, it wouldnot have been the intention of the Tamil Nadu State Government tocreate a parallel University to carry on the same functions as thatof the Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. Therefore, AnnaUniversity, Coimbatore, cannot give affiliation to courses inEngineering and Technology, in the absence of the necessary approvalfrom the All India Council for Technical Education. By merelychanging the nomenclature, Anna University, Coimbatore, cannot permitColleges to run technical courses without the necessary approval fromthe All India Council for Technical Education. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

73. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourthrespondent had further contended that it is apparent from thedecision made both by the Syndicate of Anna University and the TamilNadu State Council for Higher Education that the courses offered bythe Anna University, Coimbatore, do not fall under its purview.Therefore, the courses offered by the Anna University, Coimbatore,which are not approved by the All India Council for TechnicalEducation, do not fall under the purview of the said University. 74. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent hadfurther contended that the All India Council for Technical Educationcan regulate the standards of education in the courses commenced bythe respondent Universities. The Universities, like the AnnaUniversities, need not get the prior approval from the the All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, before commencing the courses. Theacademic council and the syndicate of the universities concerned havethe powers to decide the courses to be conducted by the Universitiesand the affiliated colleges and Institutions. 75. Ms.N.Kavitha, the learned counsel appearing for the seventhrespondent had adopted the arguments adduced by the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner. 76. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of hiscontentions. 76.1. In ROHIT PULP AND PAPER MILLS LTD., Vs. COLLECTOR OFCENTRAL EXCISE (1990 (47) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.), the Supreme Court hadheld as follows:10.The principle of statutory interpretation by which ageneric word receives a limited interpretation by reasonof its context is well established. In the context withwhich we are concerned, we can legitimately draw upon the“noscitur a sociis” principle. This expression simplymeans that “the meaning of a word is to be judged by thecompany it keeps.” Gajendragadkar, J. explained the scopeof the rule in State v. Hosptial Mazdoor Sabha (1960-2S.C.R.866) in the following words:“This rule, according to Maxwell, means that,when two or more words which are susceptible ofanalogous meaning are coupled together they areunderstood to be used in their cognate sense.They take as it were their colour from eachother, that is, the more general is restrictedto a sense analogous to a less general. The samerule is thus interpreted in “Words and Phrases”(Vo. XIV, p. 207): “Associated words take their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ meaning from one another under the doctrine ofnoscitur a sociis, the philosophy of which isthat the meaning of a doubtful word may beascertained by reference to the meaning of wordsassociated with it; such doctrine is broaderthan the maxim Ejusdem Generis”. In fact thelatter maxim “is only an illustration orspecific application of the broader maximnoscitur a sociis”. The argument is that certainessential features or attributes are invariablyassociated with the words “business and trade”as understood in the popular and conventionalsense, and it is the colour of these attributeswhich is taken by the other words used in thedefinition though their normal import may bemuch wider. We are not impressed by thisargument. It must be borne in mind that noscitura sociis is merely a rule of construction and itcannot prevail in cases where it is clear thatthe wider words have been deliberately used inorder to make the scope of the defined wordcorrespondingly wider. It is only where theintention of the legislature in associatingwider words with words of narrower significanceis doubtful, or otherwise not clear that thepresent rule of construction can be usefullyapplied. It can also be applied where themeaning of the words of wider import isdoubtful; but, where the object of thelegislature in using wider words is clear andfree of ambiguity, the rule of construction inquestion cannot be pressed into service.”This principle has been applied in a number of contexts injudicial decisions where the court is clear in its mindthat the larger meaning of the word in question could nothave been intended in the context in which it has beenused. The cases are too numerous to need discussion here.It should be sufficient to refer to one of them by way ofillustration. In Rainbow Steels Ltd. v. CST (981-2S.C.C.141) this Court had to understand the meaning of theword ‘old’ in the context of an entry in a taxing trafficwhich read thus:“Old, discarded, unserviceable or obsolete machinery, stores orvehicles including waste products......”Though the tariff item started with the use of the wide word‘old’, the Court came to the conclusion that “in order tofall within the expression ‘old machinery’ occurring in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entry, the machinery must be old machinery in the sense thatit has become non-functional or non-usable”. In other words,not the mere age of the machinery, which would be relevantin the wider sense, but the condition of the machineryanalogous to that indicated by the words following it, wasconsidered relevant for the purposes of the statute."76.2. In GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. SHRI KRISHNA (AIR 1963 SC 703)the Supreme Court, while discussing the various aspects relating tothe powers of the University concerned to prescribe the medium ofinstruction in affiliated institutions, had held that the statementsof objects and reasons of a statute may and do often furnish valuablehistorical material in ascertaining the reasons, which induced theLegislature to enact a statute but in interpreting the statute theymust be ignored. 76.3. In STATE OF T.N. Vs. ADHIYAMAN EDU. & RESEARCH INSTITUTE(1995) 4 SCC 104), the Supreme Court had held that in case ofrepugnancy between the legislation made by the Parliament and thatmade by State legislature on a subject covered by list III ofschedule VII of the constitution of India, the former shall prevailand to that extent the latter, shall be void unless it is saved byArticle 254 (2). Whether the State Law encroaches upon Entry 66 ofthe Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre underEntry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by theexamination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of eachcase. 76.4. In JAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. COMMISSIONER &SECRETARY (2000 (III) CTC 165), the Supreme Court had held that thepolicy decision taken by the Government of Kerala State not tosanction any affiliation to start private colleges is illegal andvoid. The state Government could not have any 'policy' outside theAll India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The KeralaUniversity cannot impose any condition in consistent with the Act. 76.5. In BHARATI VIDYAPEETH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2004) 11SCC 755) the Supreme Court had held as follows:The expression “coordination” used in Entry 66 of ListI of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does notmerely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a viewto forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action accordingto a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It,therefore, includes action not only for removal ofdisparities in standards but also for preventing theoccurrence of such disparities. It will include power to doall things, which are necessary to prevent what would make“coordination” either impossible or difficult. This poweris absolute and unconditional and in the absence of anyvalid compelling reasons, it must be given full effect https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ according to its plain and express intention. Within theconcepts of coordination and determination of standards ininstitutions for higher education or research andscientific and technical institutions, the entire gamut ofadmission will fall. Therefore, if any aspect of admissionof students in colleges would fall within Entry 66, thepower to legislate in regard to those aspects are entirelycarved out of the subject of education and vested inParliament and it falls outside the control of theprovisions of Entry 25 of List III. 76.6. In BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FORTECHNICAL EDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861), the Supreme Court had heldas follows: "The appellant University created under theBharathidasan University Act, 1981, is not required to seekprior approval of the All India Council for the TechnicalEducation (AICTE) to start a department for imparting acourse or programme in technical education or a technicalinstitution as an adjunct to the University itself toconduct technical courses of its choice and selection. It isa full-fledged University recognised by the UniversityGrants Commission also. The definition of 'technicalinstitution' contained in S.2(h) of AICTE Act excludes fromits purview a “university”. When by definition a“university” is excluded from a “technical institution”, tointerpret that such a clause or such an expression whereverthe expression “technical institution” occurs will include a“university” will be reading into the Act what is notprovided therein. The power to grant approval for startingnew technical institutions and for introduction of newcourses or programmes in consultation with the agenciesconcerned is covered by Section 10(k) does not cover a“university” but only a “technical institution”. If Section10(k) does not cover a “university” but only a “technicalinstitution”, a regulation cannot be framed in such a mannerso as to apply the regulation framed in respect of“technical institution” to apply for universities when theAct maintains a complete dichotomy between a “university”and a “technical institution”."76.7. In SADAKATHULLAH APPA COLLEGE Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FORTECHNICAL EDUCATION, (2004 (1) CTC 1), the Division Bench of thisCourt, while discussing the scope and powers of the All India Councilfor Technical Education, had held as follows:"15. Even if it were possible to entertain any doubtwith regard to the scope of the term "technical", one mustaccept the view of an expert body like the AICTE with regardto what is technical, and falls within the purview of it's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jurisdiction, the Council having been entrusted with theresponsibility of ensuring the co-ordinated development oftechnical education system and promoting the qualitativeimprovement therein. 21. Thus, the scope of the Council's power is vast. Itincludes every facet of technical education in the country.It enables the Council to do everything that is required toachieve the objects for which it was formed, namely thedevelopment of technical education system in the country andthe qualitative improvement thereof. Having regard to thescheme of the Act, it is not possible to accept thesubmission that the Act is meant to apply only to newinstitutions and not to those which were in existence at thetime the Act was brought into force. If such a submissionwere to be accepted it would result in the country having tocontinue to suffer qualitatively inferior set of technicalinstitutions established prior to 1987, even while therequisite quality is to be maintained by the newinstitutions established subsequent to the coming into forceof the Act." 76.8. In D.S.NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1983 (1)S.C.131), the Supreme Court had held that the fundamental principleis that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids classlegislation, but permits reasonable classification for the purpose oflegislation, which classification must satisfy the twin tests ofclassification being founded on an intelligible differentia, whichdistinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from thosethat are left out of the group and that differetia must have arational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute inquestion. The burden of establishing the rational principle on whichthe classification is founded and its correlation to the objectsought to be achieved lies upon the State. 76.9. In THE COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL Vs. K.S.JAGANNATHAN(AIR 1987 S.C.537), the Supreme Court had held that the High Courtsexercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in thenature of Mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directionswhere the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise orhas wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statuteor a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercisedsuch discretion, mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or byignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such amanner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion orthe policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred.In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Courtcan in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue awrit of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawfulmanner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a publicauthority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injusticeresulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass anorder or give directions which the Government or the public authorityshould have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercisedits discretion. 77. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the firstrespondent had relied on the following decisions in support of hiscontentions. 77.1. In GOVERNMENT OF A.P. Vs. J.B.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2005) 3SCC 212), the Supreme Court had held that the purpose of the AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act was proper planning andcoordinated development of technical education system throughout thecountry and promotion of qualitative improvement of such educationand other allied matters. The provisions of the Act are intended toimprove technical education and the various authorities under the Acthave been given exclusive responsibility to coordinate and determinethe standards of higher education. It is a general power given toevaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project ofnational importance. Such a coordinated action in higher educationwith proper standard is of paramount importance to national progress. 77.2. In STATE OF T.N. Vs. S.V.BRATHEEP (2004) 4 SCC 513), theSupreme Court had held as follows:"Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to beread together and it cannot be read in such a manner as toform an exclusivity in the matter of admission. If certainprescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over thestandards fixed by the State in exercise of powers underEntry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect thestandards laid down by the Union of India or any otherauthority functioning under it. But if higher minimum isprescribed by the State Government than what had beenprescribed by AICTE, it cannot be said that it is in anymanner adverse to the standards fixed by AICTE or reducesthe standard fixed by it. It is, therefore, permissible forthe State Government to prescribe higher qualifications forpurposes of admission to the engineering colleges than whathad been prescribed by AICTE. The standards fixed should, however, always berealistic which are attainable and are within the reach ofthe candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions bythe State Government in addition to those of AICTE in thepresent case are such which are not attainable or which are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not within the reach of the candidates who seek admissionfor engineering colleges. It is not a very high percentageof marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60%downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks.Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by aseries of decisions of the Supreme Court. If higher minimummarks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to theexcellence in the matter of admission of the students inhigher education. the State can always fix a furtherqualification or additional qualification to what has beenprescribed by AICTE even though there may be situations whena large number of seats may fall vacant on account of thehigher standards fixed. The mere fact that there arevacancies in the colleges would not be a matter which wouldgo into the question of fixing the standard of education.Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view thatonce they are qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTEthey should be admitted even if they fall short of thecriteria prescribed by the State.Prescription of standards in education is alwaysaccepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by thebodies recognising the colleges or granting affiliation,like AICTE or university. If in exercise of such power theprescription had been made, it cannot be said that the wholematter has been foreclosed. Therefore, it is not possible tosustain the argument that the criteria fixed by AICTE was tobe adopted by the respective colleges and once suchprescription had been made, it was not open to theGovernment to prescribe further standards particularly whenthey had established the institutions in exercise of theirfundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of theConstitution."77.3. In RAMESHWAR DASS MEHLA Vs. OM PRAKASH SAINI & ORS (JT 2002(2) SC 403), the Supreme Court had held that we do not think the viewtaken by the selection committee can be the subject matter of thejudicial review as was held by this Court in Govinda Rao's case. Inacademic matters, particularly pertaining to the qualifications, theview taken by the experts would be final. 78. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent hadrelied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported inBHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICALEDUCATION (AIR 2001 S.C.2861). The relevant paragraphs of the saiddecision read as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The definition of “technical institution” contained inSection 2(h) of AICTE Act excludes from its purview a“university”. When by definition a “university” is excludedfrom a “technical institution”, to interpret that such aclause or such an expression wherever the expression“technical institution” occurs will include a “university”will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein.The power to grant approval for starting new technicalinstitutions and for introduction of new courses orprogrammes in consultation with the agencies concerned iscovered by Section 10(k) does not cover a “university” butonly a “technical institution”. If Section 10(k) does notcover a “university” but only a “technical institution”, aregulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to applythe regulation framed in respect of “technical institution”to apply for universities when the Act maintains a completedichotomy between a “university” and a “technicalinstitution”.The Parliament, while enacting the AICTE Act, was fullyalive to the existence, in full force and effect of theprovisions of the UGC Act, 1956, which specifically dealtwith the coordination and determination of standards atuniversity level of institutions as well as institutions forhigher studies of the category or class other than butdeemed to be universities and yet roped into the definitionof “technical institution” only institutions not being auniversity as defined in Section 2(i). Apart from sodefining technical institutions so as to be exclusive ofuniversity even in empowering AICTE to do certain things,special care seems to have been conspicuously anddeliberately taken to make specific mention of universities,wherever and whenever alone the AICTE was expected tointeract with universities and university departments aswell as its constituent institutions. In the statement ofobjects to the AICTE Act, the evil sought to be curbed wasstated to be the coming up indiscriminately of number ofprivate engineering colleges and polytechnics in completedisregard of the guidelines resulting in diluted standards,unplanned growth, inadequate facilities and lack ofinfrastructural facilities in them and not of any anomaliesarising out of any university bodies or UGC to even think ofeither sidelining or subjugating them by constituting AICTE.The guarded language employed for the said purpose anddeliberate omission to refer to the universities in Section10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act while empowering AICTE to accordapproval for starting new technical institutions andintroduction of new programmes or courses by or in suchinstitutions cannot be ignored to be of any insignificance. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A careful analysis of the various provisions contained inSections 10, 11 and 22 will further go to show that the roleof interaction conferred upon AICTE vis-à-vis universitiesis limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenanceof norms and standards in the technical education system soas to conform to the standards laid down by it, with nofurther or direct control over such universities or scopefor any direct action except bringing it to the notice ofUGC or other authorities only, of any lapses in carrying outany directions of AICTE in this regard, for appropriateaction. The UGC and universities have always had and have anaccepted and well-merited role of primacy to play in shapingas well as stepping up a coordinated development andimprovement in the standards of education and research inthe sphere of education. When it is only institutions otherthan universities which are to seek affiliation, it was notcorrect to state in the decisions under challenges that auniversity, which cannot grant affiliation to a technicalinstitution, cannot grant the same to itself.The AICTE created under the Act is not intended to bean authority either superior to or supervise and control theuniversities and thereby superimpose itself upon suchuniversities merely for the reason that it is impartingteaching in technical education or programmes in any of itsDepartments or units. A careful scanning through of theprovisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGCAct in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory anda guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause ofmaintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms andnot as an authority empowered to issue and enforce anysanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC forappropriate action."79. In view of the various contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the recordsavailable, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefsprayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, cannot begranted, at this stage. The petitioner has not been in a position toshow that the courses conducted by the Anna Universities and itsaffiliated colleges and Institutes are relating to subjects fallingoutside the meaning of the definition of 'Allied Sciences'. 80. It is not the case of the petitioner that the AnnaUniversities and its affiliated colleges and institutes areconducting courses and programmes, which are prohibited by the Anna https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Universities Acts. Further, the petitioner has not challenged theresolutions and the recommendations of the academic council and thesyndicate of the Anna Universities. It is not for the petitionerAssociation to act as an expert body in classifying the subjects, byidentifying them as those that are related to engineering andtechnology and those which are in the nature of pure Arts andScience. Since there is no clear-cut definition of the terms 'AlliedSciences' in any of the enactments, it is for the academic experts,who are in the field of education to identify and to classify thesubjects. 81. As seen from the records available, an expert Committee hadbeen constituted to submit a report on the representation receivedfrom the affiliated colleges, for conducting B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses.The Committee, after analysing the various aspects relating to thevarious courses, had arrived at a conclusion that the syllabi of allthe B.Sc. and M.Sc. programmes offered by the EngineeringInstitutions, affiliated to Anna University, coimbatore, hadsignificant Technology content to suit the present Industryrequirements and that they are set on par with other technologyprogrammes. The Committee had also identified and recommended 38different courses, in B.Sc. and M.Sc. Programmes, for being grantedaffiliation by the Anna University, Coimbatore, from the academicyear 2008-2009 onwards. Thereafter, the syndicate had resolved toapprove the recommendations of the three member committee and toaccord affiliation to B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses in the affiliatedcolleges. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the B.Sc andM.Sc. courses offered by the affiliated colleges are not inaccordance with the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts. 82. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner,with regard to the aspect of repugnancy between the Central Act,namely, the All India Council for Technical Education Act and theAnna Universities Acts, which are State enactments, do not arise forconsideration in the present case. Even according to the learnedcounsel appearing for the fourth respondent, one of the main objectsof the All India Council for Technical Education is to maintain highstandards in technical education. He had also stated that there is nonecessity for the Anna universities to obtain the prior approval ofthe All India council for Technical Education to commence thecourses. However, the conducting of such courses is to be regulated,in accordance with the norms prescribed by the All India council forTechnical Education, as per the provisions of the All India Councilfor Technical Education Act. Though the Universities have to followthe provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, in respect ofcertain issues, they have ample powers to take decisions, with regardto the commencement of the courses relating to Engineering,Technology and Allied Sciences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

83. In order to make a decision with regard to the nature of thecourses, the syllabi, the course content and other such factorsshould be taken into account, while categorising the subjects asthose that are coming under the meaning of 'Allied Sciences' andthose that are falling under the category of Arts and Sciencesubjects. Though there may not be a clear demarcation between the twocategories of subjects, especially, in view of the changingdimensions in science and technology, it is for the experts in therelated fields to classify the subjects, as and when the necessityarises. In such circumstances, it may not be appropriate for thepetitioner to contend that the courses conducted by the AnnaUniversities and its affiliated Colleges and Institutes are inviolation of the provisions of the Anna Universities Acts. Further,the petitioner has not challenged the decisions of the academiccouncil and the syndicate of the Anna University, Coimbatore, indeciding to conduct the B.Sc. and M.Sc. Courses. 84. Further, it may not be open to the petitioner Association tostate that its members, which are conducting Arts and Sciencecourses, would be adversely affected due to the decision of the AnnaUniversities to conduct the B.Sc. and M.Sc. courses. The petitionerhas not identified the specific courses, which are not falling underthe category of 'Allied Sciences'. 85. From the decisions cited in support of the contentions raisedon behalf of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the AnnaUniversities cannot commence courses, which come under the scope of'Allied Sciences', nor can it be said that it would be inappropriatefor the Universities to permit the affiliated colleges and institutesto conduct such courses. 86. In such view of the matter, it is clear that the contentionsraised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As thewrit petition is devoid of merits, it stands dismissed.Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lanTo:1. The Registrar The Anna University Academic Campus, Jothipuram Coimbatore-641 0472. The Registrar The Anna University Guindy, Chennai-600 0323. The Registrar The Anna University Tirunelveli4. The Chairman The All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building Janpath, New Delhi-110 0015. The Secretary The Government of Tamil Nadu to Government, Higher Education Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-600 0096. The Director of Technical Education Anna University Campus Guindy, Chennai-600 0327. The Registrar The Bharathiar University Coimbatore-641 0461 cc To Mr.N.Murlikumaran, Advocate, SR.364261 cc To Mr.Purankhemka, Advocate, SR.364591 cc To Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate, SR.367491 cc To Mr.N.Kavitha, Advocate, SR.370301 cc To Mr.G.M.Mani, Advocate, SR.37308Writ Petition No.1864 of 2009PUR(CO)SRA(25/08/2009)